whereaminow (< 20)

90 Seconds

38

I know the CAPS liberals hate Ron Paul posts (so maybe I should post one every day!)

I think what they really hate is how the Ron Paul story completely undermines their belief in representative democracy. We are the government, huh? In what proportion? My candidate gets 90 seconds to speak during the CBS debate. 90 seconds. He is polling anywhere betwen 7-12%.

What the Left really fears is that all the choices were already made for them. They don't want to know that the state Media actually decides who wins and loses, not the people. They're terrified of being exposed as intellectual frauds.

Ok, check this out. This is called Making Opinion.

Now, how did every single news anchor have the EXACT same message to deliver?

Do you know what the difference between you and me watching that video is, and I think more indicative of our worldviews generally?

You assume a conspiracy there. Whereas I assume it's a bunch local newsy, C- grade-point-average communications majors who barely graduated from public universities, and whose writers all write in nothing but cliche anyway, and who furthermore (since there's no indication those clips were from the same day, and they probably were not) shamelessly copy each other's scripts because, after all, they're making $40K per year to get up at 3am and 'report' 'news' that just about any intelligent person has already read about online a day or two before they 'report' it.

But let's just say that DTAF is correct, just to humor him (he seems like he has extra sand in his vaj today).

So every news anchor just copies every other news anchor. So how does the first news anchor know that Herman Cain is suddenly a front runner? Or Rick Perry? Or Mit-less for that matter? How does the first news anchor know that Conan is pushing the envelope?

What does it take to change the media response to a person or a story? Let's say that everyone in the media copies everyone else in regards to Ron Paul. And so everyone says he's fringe, even when he clearly is not. 12% is not fringe.

If there can never be any change in the media story, because everyone is just copying everyone, how does that fit the Progressive idea of representative democracy and a free press?

DTAF doesn't see a conspiracy but he hasn't helped us understand any of this either.

I agree that the media are generally clueless. After all, I'm the one that calls them empty suits and skirts. But what is really going on here?

Ron Paul has shown basically no momentum. He polls in the high single-digits to low double-digits in every poll. He is also 70-years old and a member of the House, both negatives on the electability scale.

So I think he got ninety-seconds because he is written off. These people (pundits, pros, debate moderators) follow poll numbers, they don't make them. Herman Cain was totally written off by these people and ignored, too (as he still should be), until he gave a bunch of speeches and more importantly won the Florida straw poll, at which point probably a lot of conservatives decided they liked the idea of a non-Washington outsider CEO at prime-presidential age, who was also black, to take on Obama. Now he is failing in a sea of harrasment allegations and consequently Newt is rising in polls (he was also totally written off my media). But they will now follow him because his poll numbers have upward momentum. Then, within a week or two, we will start seeing major new stories about his sordid marital history, and his more unsavory acts as Speaker of the House, and he will fade.

Newt is rising because at root, the R nomination process is about the conservative core of the party looking for someone, anyone ("ANYONE!!!!"), who is not Romney, because they don't trust that cynical empty-vessel flip-flopper, while the pragmatic Party establishment supports Romney because they think he won't make huge gaffes, and he passes the basic 2am phone call test. Meanwhile, the core/base is motivated by three things: 1) hatred of government/trust of business, 2) hatred of abortion/gays, and 3( love of an assertive foreign policy/American exceptionalism. Of those three primary motivators, Ron Paul only satisfied the first. Worse, he is diametrically opposed to the core/base on the other two. Accordingly he stands 0.00% chance (and always has) of ever actually be nominated by the current Republican Party, especially in any state that has a closed primary.

I should add I admire a lot about Ron Paul, but could never vote for him because, as you know, I think he is disastrously wrong in his attitude towards the Fed, fiat money, and gold.

There are other things I disagree with him about, but that's the deal-breaker for me, as a potential President. But as you also know I share his generally libertarian proclivities. I would love to see him be governor of CA and take an ax to CA government, though that of course is not possible since public-sector unions control this whole state.

Hmm. I don't even know what I am. Thanks for pigeonholing me as a "progressive" simply because I don't agree with anything you say any time you say it.

Actually, like most people, I lean toward the conservative in some things and toward the liberal in other things.

I don't consider myself a brainwashed through-and-through liberal OR conservative...but I also don't see conspiracies lurking behind every corner.

DTAF articulated exactly why RP doesn't get more attention, in plain english. It's the kind of answer I wish I was facile enough with words to come up with. Perhaps I could, if I were willing to devote more time to it.

But my interests don't lie in arguing with you or anyone else over things that are more important to you than they are to me.

This is an investing website. That's what I'm interested in and that's what I come here for.

That Herman won a straw poll doesnt explain anything. Do you how many straw polls Ron has won? That he is old doesn't explain it. McCain was no spring chicken. That he is in Congress doesn't explain it. So was McCain.

But that the R establishment dislikes him and conveys that message to the media does explain it. So we agree on that right? Because that would also qualify as a conspiracy.

David, you seem to have a vaginal fixation today. Respectfully, I think vaginal fixations tend to arise when one has not recently had much contact with vaginas. You should probably consider remedying that.

Back to the topic at hand. Any explanation for why Pew Research shows that Huntsman received more media coverage than Ron Paul, or why Ron gets less than every other candidate. You really think this is just an aw shucks coincidence?

The same could be said of the narrative in the news media of Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who received the least coverage of any candidate overall

Now don't let a silly thing like facts stand in the way.

DTAF, I know you and I go way back, pretty much to the conversation where you vehemently denied that America was even close to being a police state. I can't imagine that you still hold that opinion, but hey, what does it matter.

This post asks for an explanation. You offered some thoughts. Each one is now refuted as a possibility. Do you have anything else?

Do you still think DTAF's explanation holds water, in the face of the obvious refutation of every position?

For you I hold a special place, since you've come on my blogs to disparage libertarians and so-called gold bugs (always incorrectly, of course) and never actually stepped back to say, "hey maybe I was just being a jack*ss and should offer some kind conciliatory tone."

So tell me, truth. Why should I do anything but ridicule you? What have you ever done or said to indicate that you give even the slightest consideration for my point of view?

I am a good dude, most of the time. But if you don't have anything to ever say other than b.s., I don't see why I should take the time to be respectful. I've had disagreements with enough people on this blog that didn't end in disrespect that I know the difference.

Moving on, one thing that is really lost in this discussion is that I don't think you understand why this was such an important debate. This was the Establishment's foreign policy debate. And rather than giving us a chance to hear from a person that opposes the current two party foreign policy (and also gets the support from the military that adds credibility to his position), you were denied that possibility.

What gets me isn't that you disagree, DTAF and truth, it's that you don't care. You're more interested in disagreeing with me, just to disagree, than you are with the fact that Americans were denied from hearing an alternative view on foreign policy.

Here's Ron 90 seconds. On its own it explains why he only gets 90 seconds. It's not because he's old, or a Congressman, or fringe, or because whereaminow, David Kretzmann and BillyTG post too much about him, etc. It's because he opposes American Empire. Plain and simple. And because of that, he is not given a fair chance to speak. He might actually cause people to stop waving their flags. Can't have that :)

No comment on the disappearing poll? This should remove any doubt that MSM will do anything to keep this guy 'out of sight and out of mind'. You're a tech guy- any way to authenticate that screen capture? I don't like his chances- not to win, but if he did.

Alright I'll respond because you mentioned my name. But, this will be a brief appearance.

"We have more in common than differences, but I see that and you only see our differences. And that's the real difference between you and me. "

The difference is that you will try to find common ground with people instead of arguing with them? That would be terrific if it were true.

But, it seems that this was not the case, because in post #4 you proceeded to insult DTAF, rather than try to find common ground in his post.

So to me, it seems that this blog was more of an effort to disrespect people, rather than have an honest exchange of ideas with the liberals on TMF.

Do you see why I have a hard time believing "we are the government?"

Well, obviously our gov't is deeply flawed and needs to do a better job of representing "the people". If that's what you're saying, then I agree with you 100%. Obviously the current system is horribly corrupt, and needs to be vastly improved. I don't think any "liberals" have ever said that our gov't is perfect, or that it resembles any sort of "liberal ideology".

Regarding the video in post #16, I agree with everything Ron Paul said there. In general I agree with almost all of his political and social ideas. If he had a better understanding of the economy, I might even vote for the guy.

Actually, all the disrespect aside, I had one question that nobody has addressed. Maybe everyone missed it among the playful banter, so I'll put it in bold. How does the media always have the exact same script?

Regarding the video in post #16, I agree with everything Ron Paul said there. In general I agree with almost all of his political and social ideas

Great to hear.

If he had a better understanding of the economy, I might even vote for the guy.

Really? Whose track record of prediction would you rather have, his or yours?

David, I find it strange that you think that chart refutes my points in any way. The chart is actually quite consistent with what one would expect:

First, the long-shots have low coverage amounts. Note, in that regard, that the study ended on 10/9, before Cain experienced his big increases in coverage.

Second, Bachman is high because before Perry jumped in, she was the first true-conservative alternative to Romney, entirely consistent with my thesis. She was hot after the Iowa straw poll.

Third, then Perry mumped in and generated tons of coverage as the true-conservative alternative, and a big-state governor (and handsome and tall and with all his hair, if no brain in his head) so his coverage numbers are high.

Then Cain arose as the true-conservative alternative, though as noted above, the chart misses his surge.

Santorum and Paul and Huntsman are people who 1) have never experienced any real momentum; 2) nobody expects to win; and 3) have never been held up as the true-conservative alternative to Romeny. Hence, their coverage is low, as reflected in the chart, and as consistent with my analysis.?

Note as to the conspiracy, the text on the Pew website also notes that from July onward, Gingrich received LESS coverage than Paul did. Is that part of the conspiracy, David? No, rather it reflects that after Gingrich's whole original staff abandoned him, the media wrote him off. Now that narrative is changing, as, as I stated originally, he is the new true-conservative alternative to Romney (and has performed well in debates). (Not reflected on a poll that ended on 10/9, of course.)

Finally, incidentally, the other chart you did not post from that study indicated that Paul had tied for the lowest level of negative coverage of any candidate. He had a very high level of neutral coverage: http://www.journalism.org/node/26958

I am not trying to say it's great that Paul only got 90-seconds of coverage. I think he should get more. They should try to give all of the candidates more of a similar amount of coverage in the debates, and I have never stated otherwise. All I am saying is that there is an extremely non-conspiratorial explanation for what has happened, and your chart in no way refutes it.

The one where Ron Paul was a handful of votes behind her even though she purchased votes by hosting a concert near her trailer? Oh, and wasn't that the same Iowa straw where Ron Paul's lack of media coverage prompted Jon Stewart to feature the media's seemingly irrational avoidance of him?

But go ahead and ignore reality if it contradicts with your narrative.

I am not trying to say it's great that Paul only got 90-seconds of coverage. I think he should get more.

So does pretty much everyone. So why doesn't he?

1. You think his covereage is as expected.2. Yet, you think he should be covered more3. But you are absolutely 100% sure there is no concerted effort to not cover him more and anyone who suggests otherwise should be relentlessly attacked as a conspiracy theorist.

Ok.

I know it helps you to think of me as a conspiracy theorist. I don't mind a good one either. But that's not the point of this post. The point is that the treatment is unfair, and in that we are in agreement. But you still haven't answered my original question, which is how does the media always have the exact same script.

Here's another example:

Do you know what happened in 1996 that kept Ross Perot off the stage in the Presidential Debate?

Well if we're going that way, here's something for the conspiracy crowd. Obama's mother's boss at the Ford Foundation was Timothy Geithner's father. Now that's gonna be fun.

Just remember this, when you agree with someone, he's never a conspiracy theorist It's only when you disagree.

Hmm, lack of creativity? My guess is that they rely on the same companies to conduct focus groups, market studies, etc. In other words they have determined which types of stories get the best ratings, and they all run with it.

You see the same lack of creativity on ESPN. On a given day you can watch PTI, Around the Horn, SportCenter, Dan Le Betard's show, or Jim Rome. They all cover the exact same stories, from the same angle, over and over and over again. So, is this also a liberal conspricacy? And why do these evil liberals care so much about our sports coverage??

"Really? Whose track record of prediction would you rather have, his or yours?

I think the lack of creativity plays a part, but as the Jon Stewart clip above shows, there is actually an active media hatred of Ron. There's not an active media hatred of, say, the Jacksonville Jaguars which causes them to be ignored even if they are fighting for the wild card or something like that.

Yes, empty suits and skirts, that I get. But it's not a "liberal conspiracy." I think it takes an understanding of the State to really grasp this hatred of Ron, and I do think liberals misunderstand the State and sometimes are completely ignorant to it.

Because, as I have now explained twice, it is largely driven by his percevied an actual total lack of momentum and the mathematical certainty that he will never win the Republican nomination.

"2. Yet, you think he should be covered more ... OK"

I think all candidates who are running should be given equal air time in the primary-time debates, certainly before actual polling has happened in any state. There is nothing about that that is inconsistent with my analysis, or that undermines it. Ideally pre-primary debates would give more of an opportunity for all of the runners; it's about providing more equality of oppurtunity.

"But you still haven't answered my original question, which is how does the media always have the exact same script."

Actually, your real original question was not that one. Your real first question was, with regard to the Conan video, "how did every single news anchor have the EXACT same message to deliver?" I answered that in my reply: because they are semi-educted, underpaid cliche-toting, copycatting hacks, and most were local, because there simply aren't that many national news outlets and I didn't recognize any of those people. Above you are asking a more generalized question, that I also think is based on a faulty premise. They often, but not always, copy each other because they are uncreative hacks, or because there are a limited number of "zeitgeist" stories that the public is really interested in. This happens all the time, even on a small scale. A blogger I like, Eddy Elfenbein at Crossing Wall Street, wrote a great post a few weeks ago about sharply-increased NFL kicker-accuracy. It was very widely-distributed across the web and became one of his most widely-read posts ever. Lo-and-behold, a few days after he posted it, the NYT puts up a news story about the very same topic, citing all of the same facts and adding one or two. And then today I pick up my LATimes a week or so after that, and now lo-and-behold it's in the sports section there. Within a month, increasing NFL kicker accuracy is going to be on the front page of Sports Illustrated and kindergarteners in Weehawken are going to be talking about it knowingly. That's how the media works -- copy adn extend. And in an age of HuffPo and BusinessInsider, where news stories are deliberately repackeged into new words so as not to be technical plagiarism, it's hypercharged.

And ETFs is right, it's the same darn stuff on SI and ESPN.com re: sports, every day, because there are only so many stories, and it's obvious what the sexiest or most important ones are, and so everyone often leads with the same thing if their target is the general interest.

Finally, while I don't think there is media hatred of Ron Paul, I think his combination of ideas is enough outside-the-box, that the media doesn't really understand how to deal with him. I also think that CONSERVATIVE media hates Paul: Foxnews utterly hates him, conservative periodicals not named Forbes all hate him. I don't think liberal media hates him at all. I think liberal media is actually on average kind of fond of him, but what liberal media thinks of Ron Paul doesn't matter a whole lot in a Republican primary, because the Republican core/base either could care less about what liberal media thinks, or actively chooses the opposite.

This has to be the first blog in world history where the "It's exactly like ESPN" defense has been put forward as a reasonable rebuttal.

There are some similarities in group think. Sure. But it's not just like ESPN. There are many differences. For one, ESPN is one network, so when PTI and Around the Horn run similar story lines, it's on the same network. Second, ESPN is actually far more willing to cover long shots than the network news. Long shorts are great sports stories.

Two, as Jon Stewart has observed, there is an absolute dislike for Ron Paul among the media. Brent Budowsky at the Hill and Glenn Greenwald at Salon have also made that claim. You say you don't see it. That's fine. That doesn't mean you're right. In fact, you're dead wrong. This isn't something I made up. I know you want it to be. It ain't brother. In comparison, there is no ESPN dislike of the Jacksoville Jaguars, is there? I'm not aware of it.

The ESPN defense is a classic case of grasping for straws. No one here is surprised to find out there is groupthink in other industries. What I want to know (and what many people want to know) is how the mainstream media, which employs thousands of people across the country on different networks in print, radio, online, and TV format, can all march from the same exact script?

Even if there was a conspiracy, there is no evidence of a link to the gov't... that idea stems entirely from David's personal biases. It's more likely that the media is just stupid, inbred, corrupt, etc. But, corruption doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the gov't - for example, see Rupert Murdoch's various scandals, where the abuses came entirely from the private sector.

I know you'll try to find some way to blame everything on the gov't (with no evidence) - that's why you are the one grasping at straws here.

Plus there is the fact that Ron Paul has a history of criticizing the media... so it's not really a surprise if the media simply doesn't like the guy.

About the Conan video... The reason that the news stations all reported the same exact words is because they all get their news stories from the Associated Press, and AP allows them to publish and report those stories word for word.

I'd like to go on a limb and say people seem to be agreeing that the MSM is junk and the idea of not giving each person a equal time share is the same.

With all due to repect to all parties, look at this not about if RP is any good or has a shot but look at this as we need to see what we can do and or spread awareness the MSM is poorly running. I can already see 2016 elections some paragon of leftist ideas polling lower then a front runner and all the people screaming murder forgetting when people screamed about RP.

Put the RP feelings aside and know you aren't taking his side by getting him and everyone else a fair chance to lay out their platform.

Again please no disrespect to be taken. Just reading this I see a chance where we can keep spreading this information and from my point of view it's really not about RP it's about how bad the media is.

Did you just say that Rupert Murdoch works in the private market and has no connection with the government? Like DTAF, you are so horribly uninformed. That has to be a top 10 dumb thing you've ever written. And you've written some doozies.

Is Brent Budowsky at The Hill a craaaazy conspiracy theorist? I'm sure you have no idea who he is, but he's a DC Insider that blogs Establishment politics. He's no friend of Ron. Here's his take:

For now, I think Ron Paul has a valid complaint. I think there are dramatic biases in far too many places in the media. I think some voices are blacked out while others are promoted every day. I think this is wrong whenever it occurs, by whomever the culprit.

I would not give money to Ron Paul myself, but on this matter he is right. If others choose to give him support to give their viewpoints a greater voice, I say:

Bully for them. I get it.

Like I said, it's only a conspiracy theory if you disagree. Your silly little ESPN defense does not hold any explanation. So lash out at me all you want. Call me a craaazy conspiracy theorist. But I'm not the only one who sees this.

The media is part of the State. It's not a "free" or "objective" press. To think otherwise is naive.

About the Conan video... The reason that the news stations all reported the same exact words is because they all get their news stories from the Associated Press, and AP allows them to publish and report those stories word for word

Exactly. Now, let's see if you our friends can follow this. If everyone in the media copies the first cut, and the guys making the first cut are biased against a certain candidate (see Budowsky again), then how easy is it for them to control what people see and think about a particular candidate?

I think Acesnyper has a good angle. Appeal to people's basic sense of fairness AND assert that they won't be tarred with agreeing with people they don't agree with just because they want them to be heard.

You shouldn't be called a Jew-Lover if you're against Anti-Semitism.

You shouldn't be called an Uncle Tom if you're against reverse discrimination. (Actually, if you're black, you probably will be, but that's wrong.)

You shouldn't have to worry about being called a Paulite if you're for him getting equal time and against the media blackout against him.

Media companies are more concerned with page views these days. If Ron Paul had a legitimate chance (or generated more than a mild curiosity among the masses) they would be all over him.

My theory is that most people identify with Ron Paul's message but fear the angry messengers. Now that Ron has moved closer to the mainstream he needs to ditch the "DICs" to make it to the next level. All due respect intended David... : )

The confrontational style of arguing gets attention but tends to make others less likely to consider any points where there may be some common ground between beliefs.

"Like I said, it's only a conspiracy theory if you disagree. Your silly little ESPN defense does not hold any explanation."

I never said that the ESPN example was a 100% perfect correlation. But it's still a valid point - reporting the same story doesn't necessarily prove corruption, and it certainly doesn't prove that there is any gov't influence on the media. It's a lot better than your explanation (because you don't have an explanation at all).

Saying that the media "isn't free" doesn't count as an explanation... let's see some specifics. Hold yourself to the same high standard that you hold others to.

RP fans are kinda fanatics. We are probably a little too passionate. RP is the right person for the job, but society is just not ready for him :) The future is all the young delusioned unemployed with a brain. We need them to figure out that capatlism has not really been tried in a longgggg time.

Is Brent Budowsky at The Hill a craaaazy conspiracy theorist? I'm sure you have no idea who he is, but he's a DC Insider that blogs Establishment politics. He's no friend of Ron. Here's his take:

For now, I think Ron Paul has a valid complaint. I think there are dramatic biases in far too many places in the media. I think some voices are blacked out while others are promoted every day. I think this is wrong whenever it occurs, by whomever the culprit.

I would not give money to Ron Paul myself, but on this matter he is right. If others choose to give him support to give their viewpoints a greater voice, I say:

Bully for them. I get it.

I agree with all of this. The media is clearly biased against Ron Paul... probably because he criticizes the media all the time.

How does this support your theory of gov't involvement in the media?

Let's see some hard evidence this time. After all, a "skeptic" can only be convinced by hard evidence, right? That's actually the very definition of a "skeptic".

I don't look for smoking guns. I understand the nature of the State. At least I try to. You claimed that the media operates in a free market. That isobviously false. What I am trying to show, and what should be equally obvious is that the state media can exercise influence and shape opinion. Is this really a point of dispute? Seriously?

His opposition to American Empire and his opposition to a competitive monetary system which we have an advantage in.

Seriously, with regard to American influence overseas, while I agree we needed to pick our spots better under W, in general, Kennedy is still right. To very poorly paraphrase, "If not us, then who?"

I'm guessing WAIN likes that President Obama has been pulling out of Iraq and has made very limited commitments elsewhere.

Also, the Fed under Greenspan was a disaster. Under Volker and Bernanke it has done a good job. As with many things, it is often the man and not the entire institution that is a failure. The dual mandate, much like the two party system, is a good idea, even if it is irritating.

I suppose if one was looking for a smoking gun they could look at the media's behavior in the leadup to the Iraq War. Many journalists have admitted that they were nothing more than the gov's typewriter.

Thanks for inviting me personally to respond. Unfortunately, I have little time (haven't read any of the comments so far), so I'll keep it short while shooting from the hip.

For the record, I agree that Ron Paul is being shortchanged by the media. All of them, not just the ones you call "Liberal".

Since I am not a registered Republican, I don't really care who wins the Repubican primary. But for what it is worth, I think Ron Paul should run as an independent, because he clearly does not belong in today's Republican party. His ideas are definitely appealing, just not to the Conservatives who will determine who will represent them in the next election. Or to me. Not that that matters...

When it comes to Conan, I think he is neither funny nor relevant. So what someone else says about what Conan said is even more irrelevant. To me, at least.

I agree that the state media have already decided who is going to win the next election. But since 4 more years of Obama is just what I am hoping for, it looks like I am getting my wish!

Finally, I am OK with you calling me an intellectual fraud. If that is your opinion because I disagree with most of what you say, so be it.

"I suppose if one was looking for a smoking gun they could look at the media's behavior in the leadup to the Iraq War. Many journalists have admitted that they were nothing more than the gov's typewriter."

Now we're getting somewhere. Sources?

"Reading the post over again, I think I made it pretty clear that this is driven by State media and not a govenrment conspiracy, per se. Let's see......"

Well, now you're switching your story because in comment #58 you said the government controlled the media. So which one is it, the state or the gov't? Because you went to such great lengths to differentiate the two, and now you're changing the whole story.

Ron Paul has shown basically no momentum. He polls in the high single-digits to low double-digits in every poll. -DTAF

Not anymore

"Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are in a dead heat as the top choices for Iowans likely to attend the Jan. 3 Republican presidential caucuses.

A Bloomberg News poll shows Cain at 20 percent, Paul at 19 percent, Romney at 18 percent and Gingrich at 17 percent among the likely attendees with the caucuses that start the nominating contests seven weeks away."

holy crap, were you totally MIA with everything that has happened in Iraq? Did you ever watch Green Zone with Matt Damon? It's based on a real journalist (Judith Miller) who was so freaking stupid that she reported all the propaganda her "unnamed source" was telling her. Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Powell then used her fake propaganda pieces to "prove" that Iraq had WMD. It is easily one of the biggest scams of all time, next to 9/11 itself. The government comes up with pro-war talking points, feeds them to eager reporters who will write or say anything fact-checking be damned, then have government officials go on TV saying that the "credible" reporters' pieces are proof that we need war. Miller, BTW, has a long history of being a pawn. This same cycle has been happening with Iran for years, but once again the public is too fat, dumb, and happy to see it.

This stuff is complex and the tactics are so sophisticated, yet we have Fools on TMF saying "the obvious answer is always right," and they refuse to even recognize that people are capable of conspiring with one another. They obviously have not the slightest idea of how propaganda works. To this day, many Americans still believe we are "fighting terrorism," that Bin Laden caused 9/11 and was working with Hussein, and that Hussein had WMD.

Between this and the lack of knowledge of the US obesity problem, I'm really worried that some of the smartest people are living in bubbles, lacking any awareness of the serious issues that are literally killing hundreds of thousands of people around the world.

I wonder if people know how many Iraqis have been killed through US action, since 2003? Any guesses? Sit down when you read the count and contemplate whether "Iraqis are better off because of US 'assistance,'" something most Americans believe.

"I wonder if people know how many Iraqis have been killed through US action, since 2003? Any guesses?"

You're preaching to the choir, Billy. Did you think I supported the Iraq War for some reason? Anyway, let's try to stay on topic.

In your first video, it shows the media interviewing a bunch of high-ranking military officials, who, unsurprisingly, were lying and repeating the things Rumsfeld told them to say. Ok, that's nothing I didn't already know. Are you saying the media shouldn't interview military officials anymore, because they might lie?

I have seen most of this stuff before, and none of it provides what I was asking for, which is evidence of widespread control over the media on the part of the gov't.

The Judith Miller thing is close, except there is simply no evidence that the gov't ever told her what to report on. For all we know, her "sources" might not have existed, and she could have made everything up on her own.

Either way, it sounds like she is an extreme neo-con who is now part of the Fox News crowd... so, it's not surprising at all that she was trying to make the case for war, whether it was done in tandem with the Bush administration, or independently.

Back to the first video in David's original post... I find it funny that he considered this to be such compelling evidence, yet he dismissed my ESPN example. Actually, the reasons for the similarities are exactly the same: see comment #39. The reporting is identical because they are just copying from the AP, whether it is sports stories or anything else. And, just like the sports examples, the Conan example does not do anything to support the theory of gov't involvement in the media. Why in the world would the gov't be so concerned about Conan O'Brian?

Lastly, consider something like Obama's health care bill. Where was the media to "make the case" for that landmark piece of legislation? Most media coverage at the time was biased against the bill, or neutral at best.

does not do anything to support the theory of gov't involvement in the media

I'm sorry. I have to ask your age and how much government experience you have. I'll tell you mine. I'm 37. I'n my previous life as a statist, I've worked in American embassies, Central Command Headquarters in the Middle East, been to Foggy Bottom, shook hands with Ambassadors, Colin Powell, Anthony Zinni, Madeline Albright, and even Bill Clinton.

You act like I have no clue how the government works. So I just want to know, what experience do you have and how old are you?

Do you see know, considering my life, why I have find your obstinance and dismissive nature so annoying that I sometimes wonder if you have any real world experience at all?

This is me in my younger days. The first photo is Ambassador William Milam, American ambassador to Pakistan promoting me to Sergeant in the United States Marine Corps. It was an eternity ago it seems today.

(I really hope these pics appear as they look in the preview, or I'm going to look stupid here.)

This next one was taking in South Africa, where I served on Colin Powell's security detail during a visit. I'm the guy with the red tie.

I then spent many regrettable years working on classified military contracts on bases all over the world.

It's amazing that I'm sitting here today from California, with a healthy life and somewhat sane mind, and still relatively young.

I I know how the government works very well. Not only have I lived it, I then spent years studying it to figure out why it does what it does. I have experience and theory on my side.

So try to understand, when you act dismissive of my interpretation of what the government is doing, or how it operates in general, it can only be because you have no idea what you are talking about.

You probably only do it because, like me, you love an argument. But sometimes you have to realize what you're up against.

I have no idea what your politics are, or your thoughts on Iraq. Mine was a generalized rant sparked by your comment which seemed to suggest you are clueless about how the media and government can be in collusion. Please take no offense. The public in general is downright ignorant of the underlying mechanics, and most are more than happy to write off anything complex as "conspiracy theories."

I see Fools all the time, including ETFsRule in post 38 of this blog, talk of Occam's Razor, and how the simplest thing is the correct answer. If only that were true. And if only those people who spout "Occam's Razor" actually understood it, they might not be so quick to use that as an explanation for their simplistic thoughts. It's actually quite ironic that they use an incomplete, simplistic understanding of Occam's Razor (a complex and controversial principle) to try to explain away their simplistic understanding of the markets, media, and world in general (which work through incredibly vast, changing, and complex human relationships and partnerships).

David,

I'm with you. I'm way more intertwined with the government and its off-the-record activities than I care to be. People who haven't seen "the other side" of the wall can't begin to comprehend some of this stuff. Can we blame them? How are they supposed to know what they don't? Try to explain to them compartmentalization, read-in access, clearance levels, all of which are formalized government techniques, then conformity, plausible deniability, careerism, influence operations, and their eyes will glaze over. It's easier for them to say "but there's no way so many people could know such a thing and it not be public." It's so much easier for a layman to write off things as conspiracy theories,and then to lump all conspiracy theories into one big bucket to be ignored.

If people could see what some of our leaders, from the POTUS to SecState to CJCS to SecTreasury to DCI, get briefed on daily, and if they could see what information is briefed to some of them but strategically withheld from others, they would $h!t their pants. The world is not simple. What we see on the news is not reality.

David: I'm sure you do have a lot more gov't experience than me, and you have seen a lot more than I have. That's why I asked for evidence, because from my perspective, I have not seen any of this evidence. I don't understand how that is being unreasonable.

Oh, and I'm 30. Congrats on being the old-timer here.

Billy: "I see Fools all the time, including ETFsRule in post 38 of this blog, talk of Occam's Razor, and how the simplest thing is the correct answer. "

I said that the simplest solution is usually the correct answer. That is a key word that you left out.

"If only that were true. And if only those people who spout "Occam's Razor" actually understood it, they might not be so quick to use that as an explanation for their simplistic thoughts."

I work as a product development chemist, and from my experience, Occam's Razor is right a lot more often than it is wrong. Please tell me, do you work in a scientific field, and why do you believe that you understand Occam's Razor better than I do?

"People who haven't seen "the other side" of the wall can't begin to comprehend some of this stuff."

The concepts involved here are not complicated, and I don't think a lack of understanding is a problem at all. The only issue I have is that there is a lack of evidence, and you seem to be relying heavily on rumors and insinuations to make your points. That's all.

"If people could see what some of our leaders, from the POTUS to SecState to CJCS to SecTreasury to DCI, get briefed on daily, and if they could see what information is briefed to some of them but strategically withheld from others, they would $h!t their pants."

If you had more experience working for a global, industrial company, you would know that the same thing happens in the private sector as well. Information is withheld at each level of the company, from the management board, to the CEO, to the presidents, to vice presidents, directors, managers, and everyday laborers such as myself. You can't expect everyone to know everything.

There is a difference between the military keeping some things secret, and the gov't having complete control over what the AP is allowed to report on.

Anyway, David, there is no point getting defensive. You asked for my opinion on your blog, so I gave it. The reason I am dismissive is because I don't find your points to be very convincing, or to have much substance behind them.

It's nice that you have a few years of experience in the military, but I'm sure I could find thousands of people, with more experience, who would disagree with your interpretation. You can't win on experience alone.

David: I'm sure you do have a lot more gov't experience than me, and you have seen a lot more than I have. That's why I asked for evidence, because from my perspective, I have not seen any of this evidence. I don't understand how that is being unreasonable.

You need to distinguish between evidence and proof. You're looking for a smoking gun. Plenty of evidence is offered and there's billions of bytes of evidence all over the Internet, from journalists and bloggers you would consider reputable and those you would not. Glenn Greenwald puts evidence of government interference in the press on his website nearly every day.

One does not need a smoking gun to understand this. The purpose of the State is to extract wealth through involuntary means. Ron Paul wants to cut $1 trillion and 5 departments out of the State in the first year of his presidency. That's the livelihoods of thousands of career, unelected, unaccountable, civil service employees (the State). There is no doubt they will do everything they can to stop him from being successful. If they have favors with journalists that they can cash in, you can bet that you'll get a hatchet job. I've been reading these hatchet jobs on Ron since 2007. They're laughably obvious now. If they have friends in high places in the AP or in the offices of the newsrooms, you can bet they'll have influence there. And you can be sure that they have and that they do..

"...when you act dismissive of my interpretation of what the government is doing..."

Just to clarify, I wasn't dismissing your interpretation. Your interpretation could be completely correct, for all I know. I was only being dismissive towards the arguments that you presented in this blog.

"If they have friends in high places in the AP or in the offices of the newsrooms, you can bet they'll have influence there."

I agree with that statement. I have no doubt that there are people, in the gov't and in the private sector, who have the ability to pull some strings with the media.

Just to clarify, I wasn't dismissing your interpretation. Your interpretation could be completely correct, for all I know. I was only being dismissive towards the arguments that you presented in this blog.

That's fair. When I wirte a confrontational blog, I should expect that it won't be as well reasoned as my other blogs. And I should expect confrontation back. I take responsibility for that. It's a rather obvious character flaw.

Just to clarify, I wasn't dismissing your interpretation. Your interpretation could be completely correct, for all I know. I was only being dismissive towards the arguments that you presented in this blog.

That's fair. When I wirte a confrontational blog, I should expect that it won't be as well reasoned as my other blogs. And I should expect confrontation back. I take responsibility for that. It's a rather obvious character flaw.

"The only issue I have is that there is a lack of evidence, and you seem to be relying heavily on rumors and insinuations to make your points."

You take a very lawerly approach here. The only issue I have with that is that lawyers live and die by the "if you can't prove it with evidence, then it didn't happen" attitude. That is the way it has to be for the justice system, but it does not at all reflect reality a large part of the time. Do you agree that an event can happen, even if mainstream news is not there to video it and put it on the evening news? A lot of the evidence you want is simply not available to the public. By design. So you can say it's based on rumors and insinuations, but that doesn't sit well with me when I am involved in some operation and see CNN reporting on that very event, literally in real time (as the operation is happening), and what they are depicting is completely false. It's a running joke for us that what's on the news is a joke. Other things, like the videos I posted above show a history of deliberate lies staged by politicians and their puppets to manipulate the public into backing a desired course of action. There is a pattern here, a longheld trend. In previous posts, I've named over a dozen examples of these, from President Obama recently admitting that the CIA infected Guatemalans with STDs , to the NSA admitting that the Gulf on Tonkin incident was a false flag, to admissions years later that the US illegally let hundreds of Nazi criminals into the US. All those things happened before the government fessed up. Americans, even those who know some of this government-admitted conspiracy history, still have this naivety that these things no longer happen, that "the US is telling the truth this time." Iraq WMD? No way the administration would ever lie about that, right, and no way Colin Powell could ever be setup to tell the world the lies, right? 9/11? Of course the government is telling the truth. They rushed a $15 million investigation led by White House insiders and weren't allowed to access the classified evidence, but we trust the government. It's those craxy Al Queda Bin Laden terrorists who hate us for our freedom...

I would argue the government is using far more complex tactics and has a far greater over the media to manipulate the public today than at any other time in our history.

During Republican debates, the moderators noticeably ignore Ron Paul on health care and foreign policy (among their general ignoring of him). His ideas are simply not ones they want spread. But yes, all rumors and insinuations. All of it. All coincidence.

"There is a difference between the military keeping some things secret, and the gov't having complete control over what the AP is allowed to report on."

Once again, there is a need by some to simplify the complex. We are talking about very complex and changing relationships, struggles for power and money and ego, struggles for information control and population manipulation. There is not some round table group with thousands of reporters and hundreds of government dorks hatching a massive plan to be hidden from the rest of the world. No one has complete control over anything. Through your own admittance, there are people who "pull strings." I would encourage you to keep looking and see that it's a lot more than a couple string pulls going on, however.

One thing I would add, both to my statements and to Billy's, just to help clarify this for anyone reading is that there is no such thing as government action. That is just a shorthand expression that everyone uses, libertarians and non-libertarians alike.

Government action simply means that individuals in government are acting in a way that is recognized as normal activity, or governmental, but it doesn't mean that a collective entity is acting in concert. Collective action is not reality. It is a collection of individuals acting, each with their own prejudices and ideas.

That means at any time, you and I can point to specific people within the government or the State that act in a manner consistent with our beliefs, and point to others that do not. And we can both say that government acts for us and acts against us, and both be correct and both be wrong.

The language we use can be the biggest obstacle to sharing our beliefs.

He is at 4.9% likelihood in the betting, and placing third. This is largely because of the falls of Perry and Cain, but he also did well in a new Iowa poll, above his typical 5-12% range. And, unsurprisingly, he was talked about on NPR yesterday morning. Fox is stil ignoring him because, as I stated above, they hate him. None of this will become truly interesting to me unless and until Gingrich topples, as I suspect he will (Freddie payments, ex-wives, etc.). If he does, then Paul will be the only anti-Romney left. Unless I'm very much mistaken, he still can't possibly get the nomination of today's Republican party because of his foreign policy views, but maybe at that point he'll make a run. But, hey, Intrade now gives him a 4.9% chance.

I think it is the silent hand of “Group Think” initiated and maintained thru social interaction with each other. It is a conspiracy in result but, I don’t think it is consciously orchestrated. I’ll tell you why:

First, they aren’t smart enough.

Think back to our college days. Journalism Majors were at the bottom academically and socially. At least the sports jocks were getting their tuition, etc. paid.

So you have graduates with below average intelligence and social skills forming / influencing the national political debate.

Specifically with Paul, I feel they minimize his media time because they don’t understand him intellectually. I bet most media types don’t even know how to balance their checkbooks.

So it is easier to parrot Group Think developed through their social lives among each other than do what Journalist should do; Learn the subject matter and do some decent investigative journalism.

The outlets have the same script because they are being fed the same (let me be clear: the same EXACT script). There is no other possible explanation. Coincidences of this many standard deviations do not occur.

Here's another media clip to breakdown: Ron Paul on Face the Nation with BobSchieffer. Just listen to the tone, his words, the simplteon summaries Schieffer makes of Paul's positions, his attempts to negatively frame Ron Paul's views. Schieffer is a piece of sh!t. Anyways, thought this would be a good place for you media apologists to apologize for Schieffer, too. Guess what, Schieffer also happens to be on the CFR.

Unfortunately a lot of strawmen here, which distract from the central (and accurate!) premise that Ron Paul is getting screwed in coverage.

It's a shame that the author had to go on and just assume that Progressives don't notice this and/or don't care and/or don't notice the mainstream media has completely fallen down on the job and/or not notice that our representative democracy is neither representative nor particularly democratic these days.

Quite a shame, because we progressives would love to do something about it, and would love to have allies.

Oh well. Enjoy the ridicule. One request though - at least make it witty so we can appreciate it, otherwise it's merely boring. :)

Romney will win the Republican nomination, though Paul may win Iowa. Best guess, Paul wins Iowa, Romney second, Gingrich third, Romney wins New Hampshire and goes on to win the nomination even if Gingrich wins South Carolina (which is less likely now that the governor of South Carolina has endorsed Romney). The Republican establishment is finally starting to circle the wagons around Romney, with her endorsement, Bob Dole's endorsement, a major Iowa paper's endorsement, etc.